The burden of moving forward is on Congress and the challenge facing Congress is whether they can agree on a plan other than FY2011.

If they cannot, FY2011 may very well win by default.

However that does not mean that all the "good stuff" in FY2011 - fuel depot R&D, advanced propulsion R&D, etc . . . won't be stripped out in future years in favor of a limited LEO-only crew taxi and a reduced overall NASA budget.

= = =

Edit to add: If FY2011 wins by default (because Congress fails to coalesce around another alternative) then the FY2011 plan likely would not have long term staying power during subsequent years.

As I understand it, Congress have to actually vote for FY2011, or POR continues by default.

But this is incorrect as well, in the sense that "the" admits no alternative. It would be a good way, true. The example proving that free competition is not the best or only way would be our county's trash pickup situation. There is none. Therefore, private trash companies compete for everyone's business. On our cul-de-sac, no fewer than five different companies come up and down the street every week. Clearly one truck could pick up all the trash more efficiently, but that's not the way the "system" is set up and there's an oversupply of trash companies in the county, most of them underutilized, strictly speaking. There is insufficient system regulation.

As Jorge noted: "A sufficiently high level of regulation is indistinguishable from system integration."

Were the county government to "be all that it could be", we could still have private trash companies, a more efficient system and lower costs, although some of the companies would fade away. The key word regarding regulation is "sufficiently"; should there be over-regulation, it would be "an early warning sign of imminent doom" and companies like, Buncha Friggin Idiots, might be granted a virtual monopoly over the trash business. Costs would skyrocket, in part because the administrative overhead would concern itself with maintaining the monopoly and the associated profits. Lobbying is an administrative cost, after all. A "one point design" is clearly the wrong way to go.

I believe that we have more launch capacity than we are using, and also that the launch cost structure is too high, partly as a result of virtually unaccountable cost-plus contracting, where the government, without "sufficient" regulation, artificially removes capital risk from the business equation, skewing prices. The situation is skewed even further because rockets more resemble the complexity of nuclear submarines than trash trucks, at least by my casual analysis, so the costs of "design, development and introduction to service", are quite different. This necessarily adds to the costs of regulation, but it is not so easy to quantify these costs.

That is a blatent mischaracterization in order to manipulate perception.

Not entirely true. There is no coherent view of how the future of HSF should proceed. Unless you count my view.

Quote

Furthermore, it seems people like yourself try to place people in very strict, very defined boxes, which in no way universally exist, in order to promote "me vs. them" further enflaming the fragementation you so lament.

He does do this too much, and he should stop, I would say.

Quote

In reality, opposition to the "Obama plan" may actually subside if honest, real details on how this plan is to be implemented were released. So far, we have heard vague policy and buzzwords.

That is a blatent mischaracterization in order to manipulate perception.

Furthermore, it seems people like yourself try to place people in very strict, very defined boxes, which in no way universally exist, in order to promote "me vs. them" further enflaming the fragementation you so lament.

In reality, opposition to the "Obama plan" may actually subside if honest, real details on how this plan is to be implemented were released. So far, we have heard vague policy and buzzwords.

OK, I will add to the list of types of opposition, those people who have "concerns" about the Obama plan.

FY2011 can't "win by default". Congress must cease their prohibition against ending constellation work, and provide funds for the change for FY2011 to go forward.

I think this is a canard.

First off, "Constellation" is not a legal term. "Zombie Orion" therefore could be construed as "Constellation", and thus for the purpose of satisfying Congress, the continued work on the Orion Lifeboat could be construed as "Constellation".

Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.

I PERSONALLY support most of the President's FY2011 proposal, but I would gladly take Shuttle extension + Directish HLV on a flat budget over a continuing motion any day of the week.

With a flat budget, continuing Shuttle plus adding money for HLV work might very well crowd out everything else. As in: no commercial crew transport, no Zombie Orion, and no advanced technology work. We might make some progress towards an HLV, but Exploration would be stuck in neutral.

FY2011 can't "win by default". Congress must cease their prohibition against ending constellation work, and provide funds for the change for FY2011 to go forward.

I think this is a canard.

First off, "Constellation" is not a legal term. "Zombie Orion" therefore could be construed as "Constellation", and thus for the purpose of satisfying Congress, the continued work on the Orion Lifeboat could be construed as "Constellation".

Wrong. The prohibition is against alterations to Constellation. Even changing Orion to a lifeboat would count. Let alone cancelling Ares I & V, etc.

Quote

Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.

Which is what SpacexULA said. Congress have to act. If Congress actually pass FY2011, then it isn't 'by default'.

First off, "Constellation" is not a legal term. "Zombie Orion" therefore could be construed as "Constellation", and thus for the purpose of satisfying Congress, the continued work on the Orion Lifeboat could be construed as "Constellation".

Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.

I haven't read that bill in... months, but the way I read it, and the way the congressional panels seem to be quoting it, is that almost ANY modification form Constellation, as dictated by Dr. Griffin, can be construed as a deviation.

When I say I personally prefer Shuttle extension & Direticsh HLV on flat budget, over Constellation, I only mean that in my humble view cleaning out the science directorate budget even further and continuing shuttle, is preferable to cleaning out the science directorate anyway, losing the shuttle, and continued development of Ares 1.

No matter what Congress needs to come out with money for NASA if they want ANY type of program, BEO or LEO. Obama's 1 Billion and Hutchinson's 3 Billion are low ball figures for what each bill asks NASA to do.

First off, "Constellation" is not a legal term. "Zombie Orion" therefore could be construed as "Constellation", and thus for the purpose of satisfying Congress, the continued work on the Orion Lifeboat could be construed as "Constellation".

Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.

I haven't read that bill in... months, but the way I read it, and the way the congressional panels seem to be quoting it, is that almost ANY modification form Constellation, as dictated by Dr. Griffin, can be construed as a deviation.

H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

Provided, That notwithstanding section 505 of this Act, none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.

"Program", "project", and "activity" have specific definitions and there is an Ares Project in addition to the Orion Project. Therefore, preserving only what David calls "Zombie Orion" without preserving Ares would not be considered to be compliant with HR 3288.

Second, all Congress has to do is authorize and appropriate funds in the manner suggested by Obama, and the prior "Constellation" requirement is de facto eliminated.

Which is what SpacexULA said. Congress have to act. If Congress actually pass FY2011, then it isn't 'by default'.

To add some context (51D Mascot, please step in if I misstate any of this):

1) NASA Appropriations are never considered as a standalone bill. At a minimum, each agency's appropriations are bundled with the other agencies covered by each appropriations subcommittee. In NASA's case this is "Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies" (previously HUD, VA, and independent agencies).

2) In recent years it has been standard for Congress to bundle most discretionary spending into a single bill (called an Omnibus or Consolidated bill) passed on a single vote and sent to the president for either signature or veto.

3) In recent years it has been common for Congress to fail to pass appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year. In these cases Congress passes a Continuing Resolution which funds the affected agencies at the previous fiscal year's level (and leaves intact any statutory provisions in the previous appropriations act).

With that out of the way, here are the appropriations acts covering NASA for the last several years, including date they became law (keep in mind that the fiscal year starts October 1 of the previous calendar year):

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, became law 12/16/2009.Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, became law 3/11/2009.Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, became law 12/26/2007.Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007, became law 2/15/2007.Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, became law 11/22/2005.Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, became law 12/8/2004.Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, became law 1/23/2004.Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, became law 2/20/2003.Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, became law 11/26/2001.

These results should be sobering for proponents of the FY11 plan. In none of the previous nine fiscal years has NASA appropriations been passed before the start of the fiscal year. In seven of those years NASA appropriations have been bundled with most of the rest of the government in a Consolidated or Omnibus bill. And in one of those years (2007), Congress failed to pass a NASA appropriations bill *at all*, resulting in the agency being funded for the entire year at the previous year's level. And in none of those years was the NASA appropriations bill as controversial as it is this year.

Based on this I would say that the probability of NASA starting FY11 under a Continuing Resolution at FY10 levels, with the statutory prohibition against Constellation termination in place, approaches unity.

H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

Provided, That notwithstanding section 505 of this Act, none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.

"Program", "project", and "activity" have specific definitions and there is an Ares Project in addition to the Orion Project. Therefore, preserving only what David calls "Zombie Orion" without preserving Ares would not be considered to be compliant with HR 3288.

Thanks for providing this.

I hope you realize that the specific clause above simply states that no leftover money within the Constellation program can be used for the purpose of paying for termination or to start a new activity, program or project within the architecture. As you know, Obama is not proposing a budget based on leftover funds, he is proposing NEW funds, so the above clause is not relevant to the discussion, IMHO (I may be misreading the clause).

AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations (although it can tell the future Administration what NOT to do).

H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

Provided, That notwithstanding section 505 of this Act, none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.

"Program", "project", and "activity" have specific definitions and there is an Ares Project in addition to the Orion Project. Therefore, preserving only what David calls "Zombie Orion" without preserving Ares would not be considered to be compliant with HR 3288.

Thanks for providing this.

I hope you realize that the specific clause above simply states that no leftover money within the Constellation program can be used for the purpose of paying for termination or to start a new activity, program or project within the architecture. As you know, Obama is not proposing a budget based on leftover funds, he is proposing NEW funds, so the above clause is not relevant to the discussion, IMHO (I may be misreading the clause).

It is relevant through the end of the current FY (September 30).

Quote

AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations (although it can tell the future Administration what NOT to do).

Correct. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).

Correct. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).

Didn't realize it was that persistent. Would it be correct to assume that IF NASA is funded by a continuing resolution, that Shuttle cancellation would continue at full speed?

If that's the case, could we be headed for a situation where:-Congress passes a continuing resolution for FY2011-Shuttle canceled "on schedule" in early 2011, all politicians involved point to others for causing gridlock.-After final flight of 2011 Congress acts shocked at the now existent gap, and passes a 2012 budget in May 2011, Obama signs, and uses 1 Billion from Stimulus money to "bridge" the at that point running FY2011 over to his plan.

It seems dirty, but it would allows all parties to blame someone else for the Shuttle retirement, allows the Space Representatives to run as NASA defenders, and get's Obama what he wants in early 2011. I hope this is not where we are headed, seems like dirty pool to me.

Didn't realize it was that persistent. Would it be correct to assume that IF NASA is funded by a continuing resolution, that Shuttle cancellation would continue at full speed?

Depends on how many authorized flights are left to fly. As it is, there's already a chance that the last currently scheduled flight (the one with AMS) could slip past New Year's. If there are still flights to fly, Shuttle Operations has more "room" at FY 2010 funding levels than the FY 2011 proposal.

If all the authorized flights are completed, I haven't seen a clear answer on what happens if a series of CRs are funding things.

-After final flight of 2011 Congress acts shocked at the now existent gap, and passes a 2012 budget in May 2011, Obama signs, and uses 1 Billion from Stimulus money to "bridge" the at that point running FY2011 over to his plan.

Congress is unlikely to pass a FY 2011 budget in May of next year (if nothing has happened, they'd of probably decided to go the full year of CR route), but it's even less likely (much less likely) to pass a FY 2012 budget at that time.

AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations (although it can tell the future Administration what NOT to do).

Correct. However, if Congress fails to pass FY11 appropriations by October 1 and NASA gets funded by a Continuing Resolution, the above provision remains in force until Congress *does* pass a real appropriations bill (and if we see a repeat of FY07, even that's not a given).

[/quote]

I don't think so. A continuing resolution does appropriate new money. The provision in question strictly deals with FY2010 money, not FY2011 money. Therefore, the status of Constellation would be that the money would be appropriate at FY2010 levels, but Obama would be free to move it around within the Constellation "bucket", which would effectively be Zombie Orion and HLV studies.

Note that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.

Note that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.

Is a CR for an individual agency even possible? I thought that always applied to the budget as a whole.

There are about 12 different budget "pieces" that cover the entire federal government. Its possible for one or more of the 12 to operate under a continuing resolution while the remainder are covered by FY 2011 budgets.

NASA's budget is wrapped up in a bundle of independent agencies, and that bundle is one of the 12 pieces described above. ALL of these agencies would have to be covered under a continuing resolution. This would mean, for example, that the Veterans Administration would have to operate under FY2010 budget limits next year, because of opposition to Obama's NASA budget. Same with HUD.

This is an extremely unlikely scenario, especially in an election year.

I don't think so. A continuing resolution does appropriate new money. The provision in question strictly deals with FY2010 money, not FY2011 money. Therefore, the status of Constellation would be that the money would be appropriate at FY2010 levels, but Obama would be free to move it around within the Constellation "bucket", which would effectively be Zombie Orion and HLV studies.

Note that I don't think a continuing resolution for NASA appropriations is likely.

A typical CR would contain the following language:

Quote

Such amounts as may be necessary under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable appropriations Act for the fiscal year xxxx for continuing projects or activities

So restrictions that applied to 2010 money would be applied to 2011 money appropriated by a CR.

Which makes Obama's KSC speech a little premature:

1) He knows Congress is almost cetainly not going to pass FY2011 unchanged.

2) NASA is not important enough to him to spend much political capital on.

I expect the deal language will probably be flexible enough for Obama to represent it as close enough to his budget request, while protecting the interests of Congress:

- Constellation cancelled - Orion continued in some form - Commercial crew development - Some extra money for science - Some deep space technology R&D - HLV R&D (in the form of an SDHLV) - ISS extension to 2020 - Possibly a short Shuttle extension

H.R.3288Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

Provided, That notwithstanding section 505 of this Act, none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.

"Program", "project", and "activity" have specific definitions and there is an Ares Project in addition to the Orion Project. Therefore, preserving only what David calls "Zombie Orion" without preserving Ares would not be considered to be compliant with HR 3288.

Thanks for providing this.

I hope you realize that the specific clause above simply states that no leftover money within the Constellation program can be used for the purpose of paying for termination or to start a new activity, program or project within the architecture. As you know, Obama is not proposing a budget based on leftover funds, he is proposing NEW funds, so the above clause is not relevant to the discussion, IMHO (I may be misreading the clause).

AFAIK, Congress cannot tell a future Administration what to do with future appropriations (although it can tell the future Administration what NOT to do).

You are misreading the clause. The carryover phrase refers to money carried INTO FY 2010 from prior years, but the core language refers to all appropriated 2010 funds; NASA frequently has unobligated balances that can carry over into the next fiscal year, barring a specific prohibition against such carry-over, so that language simply "bats clean-up" to ensure the clause covers all funds available to NASA during FY 2010.

Strictly speaking, it's true that no Congress can bind a future Congress, but that implies that a future Congress will CHOOSE to do something different. It's only logical, for example, that laws remain in force until repealed or superseded by a specific act. Hence the language in the clause referring to future acts of Congress.

Since NASA appears to be taking actions this year that are, or may be, in violation of the clause in the Omnibus bill, don't be surprisedto learn of legislative action in days and weeks to come to "fine tune" that language in some "appropriate" piece of legislation moving through the process at any time.

Logged

Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."